Train Thousands of New Courageous
Parachutists for the Land of
Socialism, 1940,
Anatoly Devyanin
(1911-1986)

Well, I hung up 30 minutes in. I had heard the senatorial exhortation, heard the questions (little left to say) on the Kennedy blogger call.

This is an uphill battle, but one in which we can at the very least achieve a moral victory.

Approached with principle, with passion, and with vigor, a moral victory is not a hollow victory.

As Senator Kennedy told us, "You don't ever lose fighting for principle, for what is decent and right. You don't ever lose when you have the power, the force of being correct."
Now let's get back to work!

But, I had watched Kennedy's face each day of the hearings, the day he gave his floor speech against Alito. If you can believe it, he first spoke in the slot reserved for Byrd, then was interrupted and moved aside for Bobby Byrd....

I am sure these are bitter days, they look to be intensely bitter.

I also heard and saw lack of will, any will, in Reid on Thursday, others saw hints of smiles and "something up his sleeve". There is false hope and there is just plain false.
Political assessment will vary. Atmospherics. Shrum produced speeches... ''The dream shall never never die... ''

What of legacy? So important in politics - and it seems we are for dynasties. All the big battles foreseen since Reagan (another enemy dismissed as ''stupid'') ascended to national power have come. They were not met... or met slightly, in the margins.

A Democratic majority, with a Democratic Chair of the Judiciary delivered us Clarence Thomas. 11 crossed the aisle, the vote 52-48. The Republicans can count on the Democrats. Enough of them, every single day.

Hardest of all, there were so many martyrs across the years.

Would that there were strength for a filibuster. "Saving" it last spring indeed did not save it.

I hope some of the comments I'm reading around the blogosphere aren't reflections of of a knee jerk cynicism on the part of Democrats who have fallen in love with their assessment that they are superior to their elected leaders.

This is a very dangerous state of mind.

No, it is called schism. Long, long overdue. The Democratic party partitioned itself in the wake of the '72 election... Bob Strauss purged the left organisations from the great Rolodex at the DNC. The Republicans folded in their movement conservatives, they purged their party, slowly - level by level, of moderate Republicans: they are only extremists now. The "moderates" who remain happily embrace "winning" and are not troubled at all by virulent racism, propaganda reminiscent of asbestos insulation (it's killing us, it is cancerous) and murderously low taxes.

Ante-bellum uber alles.

There is always a "noble cause". South Carolina is the litmus test in the Republican primary system and one must genuflect, or the christians will lie about you. Genuflect in any direction, pray the pogrom does not sneak up while you are in pious mode (eyes shut). Unregulated, deregulated Mammon, truly and absolutely is their god.

A broad spectrum Democratic party would have had a chance to be strong. Fractious, messy, no one ever promised a formal rose garden with the Democrats.

I must write, tho I hardly bother anymore, to state how ashamed I am of the Democratic Party.

I watched every day of the hearings for Alito. Disorganised, inept and ultimately just weak. For this most vital nomination. The thing for which you all lied and kept your powder forever dry.

Yes, you did, you were eternal virgins for the next "fight".

In how many elections did you drag out, and dust off, "Its for the Supreme Court"?

FOR SHAME.

As the Democratic party morphed more and more to be a lesser version of the MODERN Republicans (I would not fuss if you were old time moderate-to-liberal Republicans) there really is no reason to struggle anymore. Why bother to wish you all were better? You are not.

If only the small number of you still alive would break off. Many of us would follow. Instead we will pull back from national politics and work locally.

We dismiss you. For your failures.

Close the casket on the party. They fight for NOTHING. Certainly not for people.

First voted in 1972. Did not vote for Kerry in '04, why bother, the Republican machine would continue to hound him and he proved HE DID NOT FIGHT.

One point, lest you think I was not paying attention, the Navy records. No excuse, release them. The February 2003 medical records, no excuse, release them. He released neither.

"It is a hollow party," Stern said, adding that "if John Kerry becomes president, it hurts" chances of reforming the Democrats and organized labor. [...]

Later in the day, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney told The Post that Stern's attitude "is not justified." Sweeney, also a product of the SEIU, the largest and fastest-growing union in the AFL-CIO, said the process of change is already underway within labor, adding that he is impressed with "the unity and solidarity" of Democratic support for Kerry. "I'm optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party," he said.

Stern made it clear that his complaints long preceded Kerry's nomination. He said that when Clinton was president, he demonstrated how little he cared for the Democratic Party.

Calling the former president "the greatest fundraiser of his time," Stern asked: "If you think the Democratic Party is valuable, why would you leave it bankrupt?"

Other elected officials are equally indifferent to the party, he said, adding that if Kerry is elected "he would smother" any effort to give it more intellectual heft and organizational muscle.

I notice Sweeney took the loss on CAFTA very seriously: You don't deliver.

And immediately post Nov. 2, Stern changed the manner in which SEIU supports the party in its quadrennial thrashing. I think they trust you (the group "you") as much as I do.

And the bill was passed because, ultimately, not one Democratic senator got up and said I donâ€™t consent to the bill being heard at this time.

And I want to say to ... the Democratic senators, donâ€™t do this to Terri Schiavo again. To have this womanâ€™s wishes now, to have her feeding tube inserted by a subsequent act of Congress before she dies, would be a horrific act upon her body.

And if the Democratic minority doesnâ€™t stand up for Terri Schiavo, then they deserve to be the minority party.

If they canâ€™t stand up and one person say, no, weâ€™re not going to ramrod this through. If they canâ€™t stand up for the civil liberties of each and every one of us, then they deserve to be the minority party and the dwindling minority party. Itâ€™s time for them to stand up. Yes.

But you did not. You all hid. And before you hid, you cut deals in the cloakroom. And in case you think I was not paying attention, Yes Levin changed "may" to "shall" and yes, Wyden manoevered a delay. But first Reid caved.

So Jedmunds has read Markos and Jerome's book. I haven't. I suppose I'll flip through some pages next time I'm in a bookstore that carries it. But having read Kos on DailyKos for over a year now, I don't feel any need to part with my hard-earned money and too-short time to curl up with a tome about how civil rights are "special interests" and how the Democratic Party can win only by standing for nothing except things not (quite) Republican.

The most glaring problem with the Kos/Armstrong approach to â€œreformingâ€? the Democratic Party is their ill-considered assault on so called â€œsingle issue groups,â€? ie unions, feminists, blacks and Hispanics. It may in fact be true, as Kos/Armstrong argue, that the sum of these special interests is no greater than the sum of their parts, however their purported solution is breathtakingly naÃ¯ve. They embrace what they call a broad based, yet completely undefined â€œprogressiveâ€? movement, that will remain outside of the Democratic Party, and like their historical conservative counterpart, â€œtake overâ€? the Democratic Party.

Some problems with this idea are readily apparent. First, it is not at all clear that this progressive movement is itself anything more than the sum of these â€œspecial interests.â€? Sure, itâ€™s lovely that this â€œprogressiveâ€? movement, which has no apparent purpose other than electing people who happen to be Democrats, will be unencumbered by these single issue litmus tests, such that theoretically, a pro-life, pro-business, anti-immigrant, war-hawk can be elected under the Democratic banner provided he gives rhetorical hell to the Republicans. And that would be considered a great victory for this â€œprogressiveâ€? movement.

What I find extremely interesting is how much Markos, and it seems Jerome, have totally bought into the Republican frame of Democratic constituents: "special interests." That puts women's fighting for equal rights right up there with Enron pushing for special regulatory favors. That puts African Americans fighting for equal rights and equal opportunity right up there with the oil and gas industry pushing for less regulation and more tax breaks.

Where Markos and Jerome see "special interests" in traditionally Democratic constituencies, I see citizens. And when it comes to Dick and Jane fighting for their rights vs. Multinational Conglomerates R Us lobbying to be able to dump more toxic waste in the country's drinking water, I don't have any problem seeing a difference.

What I find even more laughable is the idea that you can just glom on to the progressive netroots label with avowedly non-progressive, Democratic Party sites like DailyKos, and figure nobody will notice.

Markos a progressive? Give me a fucking break. How many progressive principles has Kos actively, and often viciously, attacked? How can anyone who labels people fighting for their rights as "roadblocks" to be "pushed aside" call himself a progressive.

Obviously the word is rapidly becoming meaningless, at least in the online world. In fact, the Markos strategy to winning elections is to be for nothing but against anything Republican. To him, being for anything means giving in to "single issue voters" like "the women's studies set," whom his "big tent" ideas have no room for. (Several people noted on "Blog for Choice Day" that Daily Kos was mute on the subject, except for a culture of death diary pushing all the right-wing talking points on reproductive rights. You can accuse Daily Kos of a lot of things, but you can't call them pro-choice -- not when they're pushing candidates who are proudly in favor of forced pregnancy.)

Jedmunds continues....

This purported â€œprogressiveâ€? movement would appear to have no ideological goals other than electing Democrats. Seriously. According to Kausâ€¦ err Kos and Armstrong, we need to take over the Democratic Party, just to get the Democratic Party interested in winning elections. If you think about that long enough, when youâ€™re done laughing, youâ€™ll probably start crying. Unless youâ€™re like me, in which case you squelch your emotions beneath a hard, calloused layer of seething and bubbling rage.

But in fact Kos and Armstrong insist that this new â€œprogressiveâ€? movement is without firm ideology, un-united by any single issue except for perhaps opposition to the Iraq war. Yes, indeed, this progressive movement is united in its opposition to a decision that was made almost three years ago. Hahaha. No really, itâ€™s kind of sad. In fact, I doubt many of us are united by little more than an intense and conditioned opposition to the current occupant. And I wonder if Kos and Armstrong ever considered what will happen to this â€œprogressiveâ€? movement, united by nothing more than the desire to bring Democrats kicking and screaming to power, when the current occupant takes the heroâ€™s walk into the sunset. Or maybe more optimistically, when and if the Republicans in general heal their self image which has taken some blows lately. What does this â€œprogressiveâ€? movement do then? Itâ€™s easy to be anti-Republican and nothing more, when Republicans are at their nadir of popularity.

When I look at the strategies pushed on the front page of Daily Kos, I wonder at how they can claim that they're offering anything other than business as usual. Already the Democrats are weak and disorganized because they cannot unite around any issues. Already vast numbers of Democrats vote along with the Republicans on offensive bills like the "Now You Have to Be Rich to Declare Bankruptcy" bill. How is pushing for more "big tent" Democrats (read: Democrats who don't hold progressive values) going to improve things? How is this any different than what the DCCC, DLC and other establishment players are already doing?

Answer: It's not any different. And if you want proof, just look at how Kos & Co. push Democratic Establishment golden boys like Bob Casey, Jr., whose radical right-wing views include making women's wombs property of the State.

But they donâ€™t realize that they have the same problem the Democratic Party has: they donâ€™t know what they stand for, because theyâ€™re too afraid to stand for anything.

This is the heart of the problem. Rather than fight for progressive values, Kos and Armstrong advocate more running away from scary Republican rhetoric. Call it the Michael ("I-I-I-I am not a liberal!") Dukakis school of politics.

This â€œprogressiveâ€? movement to take over the Democratic Party is little more than an illusion. Itâ€™s all pretend. A dash of rabble-rousing and a dash of half-assed wishful thinking for a facile ride that anyone can get on and thatâ€™ll never go anywhere. Thereâ€™s no point to it. At all. Thereâ€™s not really even a commitment to grassroots politics. After all, Schumerâ€™s appointing Casey as the nominee apparent in Pennsylvania is to be celebrated, for the sole reason that Casey can win. We not only donâ€™t care about ideology, we donâ€™t even need to care about process. Let the DC Dems decide. Because they know best. Except when they donâ€™t. How can we tell the difference? Well, I guess Kos will tell us.

There is a real progressive movement. It's just not happening at Daily Kos -- let alone being led by Markos. Or, as Jedmunds says,

I suspect that a truly enduring movement needs to be united by more than anti-Republicanism or anti-Bushism. And they need to have some idea of what they believe in, or else they wonâ€™t exist beyond victory. And I suspect, that if a real progressive movement is to emerge in this country, that Kos and Armstrong, like the Democratic Party itself, will be obstacles to it and not leaders of it.

Iâ€™m inclined to think Kos & Co. have pitted â€œspecial interestsâ€? against the party, and I donâ€™t think their goals are necessarily at odds. Or, to put it another way, this paranoid fear that advocacy groups turn off the public strikes me as illogical.

Trying to woo [pocketbook voters] away by promising to be Repub-lite wonâ€™t work. Trying to woo them away by promising to be more Repub than the Republicans wonâ€™t likely work either - why should they believe it?

OTOH, the DCCC is just dumb enough to try *either* of those. In which case they will wonder, as they embrace being Evildum to Evildee, why all remaining traces of their old â€œbaseâ€? have evaporated - and pay Al From another half-billion to try to figure it out for them.

Part of the trouble is that the progressives have been trying to take over the Democrats from the outside ever since the Radical Republicans were defeated and the Republicans were purged of progressive politics. Kosâ€™s model is exactly that which has led to defeats of progressive movements over and over again.

the dems and kos and all the rest want a win now, any actual strategy that would allow liberal issues to get implemented would take time, they want cake now, before dinner, and are honestly believe that they wonâ€™t spoil their appetite.

The only people Iâ€™ve seen sell things off and out as quickly and easily as these guys are crack heads, and like crack heads they donâ€™t care who they hurt in the search for the next hit.

Thing is, the mainstream Democrats have largely kept people like me (waaay to the left of the party as it presently stands) in line and voting for them based on, really, the one Big Issue, the one on which they were never supposed to fail us: abortion. And yet, here we go, theyâ€™re about to do just that. And when that happens â€” and I tell you, I am this close to certain that itâ€™s going to happen, oh, in a few days or weeks, when Alito gets confirmed â€” my much-decried special interest ass is going to be looking elsewhere. Hereâ€™s where the anti-choice fundie wackjobs and I are alike: I donâ€™t like feeling like Iâ€™ve been played for a chump by my party. And I really donâ€™t think Iâ€™m going to be alone in this.

Jettisoning ideology and identity politics in order to get nominal Democrats elected to office is the kind of profoundly stupid thing the DLC has been up to for a long time now. And we can see how goddamn successful thatâ€™s been. We are seriously outgunned when it comes to the really big money, the press is largely in the tank, about all weâ€™ve got on our side is this fragile coalition of identity-based progressive groups and individuals, and Kos and Jerome want to marginalize us further? The hell? Why the fuck would I want to get right-wing Democrats elected? Whatâ€™s in it for me? God, yes, Iâ€™d love to see that twisted little shit Rick Santorum driven from office, but by Casey? Why?

This leadership is purposefully destroying the party by their willful and intended ineffectiveness.. now that the party is almost the size of a bathtub the bastards have the nerve to take the base hostage and demand ransoms for them to represent us again. They have made the terms of the ransom very clearâ€¦ Only when you give up your liberal and progressive issue will we then go back to work and represent youâ€¦ however, the fact of the matter is that once we give up our dreaded issues and ideologies and become partisan just for partisan fuck sakeâ€¦ our representatives will actually be representing the GOP they envy so, and not us.

You donâ€™t have to vote Democratic. Itâ€™s a free country. You can vote third-party or stay home if you like. But the upshot of your doing so is twofold: a) more Republicans are going to be elected (and yes, that will actually make a difference to policy decisions regarding the issues liberals care about), and b) Democrats will tack even further to the right, since theyâ€™re no longer getting votes from the left.

This is the regularly-employed tactic. The only problem is that we're talking about the Democratic Party, and who's leading it and best representing the voters. Casey apologists and others like to jump ahead to November, but we're entering primary season. There are no official Democratic nominees to Congress and the Senate yet.

And yet these right-wing faux-progressives claim that only their boys can win. I think the past two decades have proven that that's not true.

I don't know, but to me these folks seem like they're so driven by fear that they figure the only Democrats who can win elections are Republicans, or at least Democrats who look as Republican as possible.

Which is kind of like lighting a fire in the hearth on a really hot day, and offering the rationale that at least it's our heat, and not from the sun.

The problem with compromising your ideology instead of fighting like hell to normalize it is that you normalize the other guyâ€™s ideology.

Liquidating ideology for partisanship ultimately only serves to normalize the oppositionâ€™s ideology and thus to keep getting them elected. The entire point of the conservative movement since the 70â€™s has been to normalize their ideology to make themselves into the center and thus to increase their electoral fortunes.

While the chapters on consultants and infrastructure may garner the book attention among established Democratic circles, it is the chapter on the single-issue groups that I bet will be best received by the blogosphere. This was the case in an earlier review of Crashing the Gate published on ePluribus Media by Aaron Barlow. Barlow commended the authors for taking on the single-issue groups who peddle special interests and pet issues (frames that are Republican in origin and generated to discredit Democrats; Markos and Jerome repeatedly adopt such frames - one wonders if they read their Lakoff that closely), and opens his own review with the familiar tale of an anti-war protest that saw a series of speakers take the podium to exhort the audience to care about their own cause.

For Markos and Jerome, such instances are perfect examples of how these single issue special interests have ruined the Democratic Party brand. I find that difficult to believe, particularly since in the case of antiwar protests, they would not have existed at all had it been up to the Democrats. Antiwar activism has routinely been denigrated by the Democratic establishment. To blame antiwar activists for Democratic failures, then, is to me simply appalling. Had Democrats either taken the lead on opposing the war, or done their jobs and not voted for it in the first place, the single-issue approach the authors find so frustrating wouldn't have happened at all.

[snip]

One has to be careful to not allow an attack on specific groups and organizations to slide over and become an attack on people who take those issues seriously. While neither Markos nor Jerome explicity makes such an attack on people, their use of language - speaking of these matters as special interests (a Republican frame) and as pet issues (another Republican frame) can have that impact, especially if this book is uncritically used to frame the discussion. Democrats take issues like the environment and abortion and labor rights and ending racism and health care and peace extremely seriously, as well they should. Any Democratic strategy must also take them seriously.

What we do want, and what the authors seem to desire as well, is for these groups to craft a strategy that is holistic in nature. To come together to support candidates who share all values (The authors suggest that the 2004 Colorado elections were a good example of this approach). And to come together to explain to Americans why their core issues of concern are not separate, but are fundamentally, even inextricably, linked - why you can't have successful labor organizing without addressing racism, why you can't fix the environment without talking about foreign policy, why you can't provide universal health care and at the same time say it's OK to deny women abortions, as someone last weekend tried to convince me you could.

In short, that strategy needs to directly address what is routinely derided by Markos and Jerome in this book: ideology.

The American political landscape is littered with the bodies of Democrats who believed you could build a governing majority without worrying about ideology. Pat Brown, Lyndon Johnson, even Jimmy Carter to some extent, found out the hard way that as a Democrat, you ignore debates over ideology and deeply-held beliefs of your voting base at your peril. Ideological splits cannot be forestalled by appealing to party unity or by trying to silence dissent - they can only be resolved by working through the issues themselves, rather than ignoring them and allowing them to fester.

Markos and Jerome's dismissive attitudes of ideology are more than politically shortsighted. Their attitudes, I would suggest, stand in the way of a reconstruction of a progressive message. To the authors, ideology is a term that is always defined as a negative. Ideology divides, never unites. It alienates, never amalgamates.

In light of this in the course of the past week, I pulled out a little ditty I had dashed off (and never posted) one hot midnight, in the waning days of August and September, 2004. Such shame the Kerry/Edwards campaign foisted upon itself. The week that Reid apologises for "tone" and for ''naming'' Republicans, that campaign roamed into my mind again.

Tell us again about the mob, the Gaming Commission and the bombs ...? Not that we ever bought that whopper.

Then I caught Kerry on This Week with Stephanopoulos. Kerry needs to retire and find a hobby.

Later came Hillary, C-Span delivered her to me, and her lecturing speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center at Princeton. She skipped advising us about the plantation (and she knows what, I wonder), but she did cover Iran (danger), Israel (we are loyal forever), Sharon (man of peace) and that the Palestinians must prove... something, a lot no doubt.

Time to post my ditty...

Dated 9/27/2004

Bark, meow, Mother may I bark and may my friend meow?

But let us know if you don't like us and then we won't... sorry to be asking, did we interrupt, we can speak more softly, really we can... Let us show you! We aim to please!... We are the politically correct warriors! WARRIOR! We are yelling...

Did the tree fall in the empty forest? Did anyone hear, or care? Are we the tree or the forest, is it a sprint or marathon? What is it? Tell us so we can figure it out...

We learned things in school, we love school. They taught us to read. We love books. We travel. We try not to look around, we might see or hear... or learn. Better we do not.

I am sure, very sure we registered voters... oh I am sorry, you say we should have registered some Republican voters?, oh so sorry we will get right on it! Please, always tell us the rules of the road...maybe McCain can call us... why don't we hear from him? He used to like us...? What happened?

Some say we used to win, did we? We must have been ba-a-ad asses, don't want to be that, you need your space, we understand. "Understand", that is what liberals do -- bad word! slap wrist, BUT! we are courageous to say it! We stand up for ourselves! We do. We are 3 feet tall and reaching for the door knob. We step aside for you. You have your needs. We are here for you. We understand. We do that well.

Cotton Choppers. Sherard Plantation.
Sherard, Mississippi, 1992.

You are the biggest baddie that ever was... we crown you, we are prostrate before you. You are the Father and the Mother. Holy Ghost too! Did Ratzinger say we could say that? Or speak in Mass? Can we take communion? Does anyone know? We heard the Catholics are mad?....

Should we register some Republicans in Cincinnati? Would that help?, we'll do it!... or I know, Miami!, yes we will, we will find deaf elderly Cubans who still believe in anti communism and know nothing. Ones that are still mad over Elian, believe he was a jesus from the sea!

Yes, right away sir. Please send us a list. We know how to register people, it is FUN, so collegiate, it is the work left to liberals.. oh! Bad Word! But we are courageous to SAY it, yes we are... . Oh sure they vote, why not, we registered them!... we say we are happy happy happy that Kerry is the candidate.

Plantation shack in cotton field.
Mississippi Delta 1990.

Yes, he is elect-able! Based on what, you ask?... oh the others, they were -- unacceptable. And, maybe, what did they say?, they told us someone was angry. Oh! I am sure not us. No, that is not like us... we are never intemperate. That left electable. It was based on a math, oh no, myth, it says MYTH, it says here, based on a mythical equation.

OK, not math, sure, we know about math. We learned in school. After Civics Class, so important. Then we signed up for PoliSci, yes we did, so important... Oh now? Now, we are pre-law. Yes, foundation of democracy. Rule of Law, and we know things. It says here,

DO YOU WANT ANTI-ABORTION JUDGES? VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS. hmmm I don't think the Catholics want us to say that...

uh, OK, the cheat sheet says, ''it's about the Supreme Court''. How did we forget. We have an entire list of Talking Points: it says ''Supreme Court'' 20 times over. See, we know it is important. Civics class. We learned it.

Downtown on July 4.
Sledge, Mississippi, 1992.

And Kerry says: send me. Or did Bill tell us that. No, Bill told us: Fall in love then fall in line. Or was that pillow talk with Monica. Oh maybe it was. We are confused. He wants this, trust us. We register voters. Our civic Duty. We know about government. They taught us in school. We value school, we fight for education. The environment. Wait, there is... that list we talk from... oh, it too says, Fall in Love then Fall in line. uh, I think we did that, but did we fall in love... ?

River baptism, Moon Lake.
Coahoma County, Mississippi, 1989.

That's it! We love the Supreme Court! Of course we do!

Wait it says, in the tinier print: Suck it up sucka! My, such language. Not liberal... oh you say we tell ourselves that about Losing.. Oh yes, well, then fine. We are fine with that...It must be Civic Duty.

Our Civic Duty.

....and the Republicans laugh laugh laugh laugh all the way to the seats of power.

= = = = = = = = = =

Shortly after the 2004 loss I heard Kennedy say, with some anger it seemed, that only 43% of eligible blacks are registered to vote in Mississippi. There had been many statements from Democrats, up to and including Kerry (who waffled, he said Zell told him his speeches were good to go in the South, in interview with CNN/Judy Woodruff), that they ''did not need the South to win''. The Democratic ticket did not carry Edwards' home district in North Carolina, as it happens. Fools, and worse.

By late August 1964, four project volunteers had been killed, four others critically wounded, 80 physically beaten, and one thousand arrested. During the Freedom Summer, 37 black churches were firebombed and burned, and thirty black-owned homes and businesses were destroyed.

However, the Freedom Summer highlighted the struggle for voting rights and social justice for blacks in the Deep South as never before. Within the next year, pushed by the Johnson Administration, Congress passed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The effects of its passage and implementation across the South, and especially in Mississippi, were dramatic.

In August 1965, only 6.7 percent of Mississippi blacks were registered to vote. By August 1967, 59.8 percent of Mississippiâ€™s African Americans were registered, the highest percentage of black registered voters anywhere in the region.

The tragic aftermath of Freedom Summer in Mississippi today is found in the disturbing disfranchisement of African-American voters in that state, due to unfair election restrictions. In Mississippi, residents convicted of a felony lose their right to vote for the remainder of their lives.

By 2000, about one-third of the stateâ€™s black male voters were ineligible from voting. A similar situation exists in many other states.

Until several years ago, both the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus were slow to recognize the serious erosion of black voting power due to these restrictions on ex-prisoners.

I have often wondered why as we enter the 21st Century that their plight has been ignored, their freedom from want and their voices go unheard and unanswered.

I think back to those days as I watched my parent's T.V., 13 years old and drawn by the fears of the missing Civil Rights workers and what I saw. I think of the hopes that I held in my heart. Surely, America wouldn't turn her eyes from places such as the Mississippi Delta.

The Democratic plan resembles the reform agenda unveiled by Republicans the day before, tougher in some parts, more lax in others. Democrats would ban more gifts to lawmakers, for example, but Republicans would ban more junkets.

Both plans would leave unchanged the flow of money to political campaigns, which government reform groups say remains a bigger problem than lavish meals, tickets to luxury skyboxes and junkets.

As if to underscore how some things would remain the same, Democrats later Wednesday used their reform agenda as the key to a new fundraising pitch to supporters, seeking contributions of $35 to $500.

With both parties urging reforms, it was unclear if the Democrats could successfully cast themselves as offering a clear alternative to a country that, as of now, thinks both parties are corrupt.

Again! the Republicans will cast themselves as both extremist AND moderate, or, in this case, "reformer". Democrats decline the national conversation 'til late in the game, and thus lose.

End of story, or would be, except they DO wash, rinse and repeat.

"You cannot take back congressional majorities if, like the Democrats, you propose solutions that are easily blurred by the majority," said liberal strategist David Sirota.

Party leaders hope otherwise, betting that the public will blame Republicans for the scandal surrounding disgraced lobbyist and fellow Republican Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to conspiring to corrupt public officials, among other charges.

Implosion, implosion, implosion forever! ... But then, they never do implode! They are cockroaches, can the Democrats not figure this out?

"The danger is that they are going to talk about a variety of proposals that will look more like window dressing than an institutional change in the way they do business," said Chellie Pingree, national president of Common Cause, a watchdog group pushing for broader change. [...]

"Congress as a whole needs to step back and look at the way it conducts its business," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised lawmakers on lobbying reform. "It's not just lobbyists influencing members of Congress, it's members of Congress shaking down lobbyists for money."

I watched the Dems, Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the Blue Etcetera on parade (apologies to Louise Slaughter, but if she is real, they will drown her out).... I have a lot of hope, don't you... ? I feel so renewed and refreshed.

To say that the "other side" is Dreier, Hastert, Blunt, Cornyn and Frist - and the Red Etcetera is meaningless and a flabby argument... Like a "conversation" about their ''investments'' that I once heard between McAuliffe and Marc Racicot, iirc, they both were Global Crossing boyos. Gag worthy.

Yes, now it is Howard and Ken. Well. To be frank, does not mean much. Mehlman has the support of his party and his president, leader of the party. Howard has state Dems who desperately wish for some grassroots money and a voice against the DC Dems. What will happen with Howard (and to Howard), whose heart is roughly, somewhat, pretty much (life is tentative) in the right place? Hard to say right now... we cannot be certain, not 'til it happens.

Cover illustration by Andrzej Klimowski
for Harold Pinter's play,One for the Road